Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,097 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 820,881
Pageviews Today: 1,452,413Threads Today: 616Posts Today: 10,710
04:45 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject Ummmmm did anyone else catch this??
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
...


The suspect gave consent. Enough said.

Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given.

But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES.

Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities.

All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1569528


That may be true in this case....but the ruling is what is concerning.
 Quoting: Chibs


Most misdemeanor traffic stops are based on "reasonableness". Basically, almost anything to give cause or reason for the cop to pull them over. From their, the cop can ask anything he wants. You have the right to say NO, but if the cop sees anything in plainview, or sees other things such as actions, words, body language, a plethora of other reasons to make him wonder, he will ask.

Traffic stops need to be based on somehting, and a tail light usually does it. the cop only gave a warning. Seems pretty standard. Went down hill from there for the perp.

Cops are trained to know the codes or laws enough to do their job. It is not their job to be in court dealing with the gray areas. That's the lawyers job. Granted their is officer discretion, but a warning ticket was his discretion at the time.

Since we don't know the full intricate details, which there could be more to cause the cop to ask, we will need to take the time to read the case in detail.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1569528


The wrench in this, is that in North Carolina it is LEGAL to have ONE working tail-light. No reason for the pullover what-so-ever, according to the law there anyways. Cop Did Not know that said Law was and is still in effect but pulled the guy who got caught and the driver over regardless of the fact.
 Quoting: TeHeoN


Getting stupid barking dog out house....ugh.

Saw this....interesting. However, devil advoctae here, maybe true, but was brake light out as well since many vehicles today use the same bulb. So if tail light is out, hits the brakes, then brake light as well.

If that is the case, then justified. If not, then definately messed up.

Not sure what is the detail on that one regarding this particular case....

Back to bed.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:







GLP